If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

The Muscle and Brawn Forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Muscle and Brawn community stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.

As I noted in the introduction, a lot of lifters get fairly angry or upset over the above types of estimations, assuming that they don’t take into account individual differences in motivation, work ethic, etc. To that I say nonsense.

Both Casey and Martin’s equations are based on top level natural bodybuilders, the group that you’d expect to surpass such limits if they existed (and who’s dedication and work ethic is pretty hard to question). Mine and Alan’s are based on years of experience in the field. If a massive number of exceptions to the above existed, someone would have seen them by now.

"If a massive number of exceptions to the above existed, someone would have seen them by now."

Now I think part of this has to do with exceedingly skewed ideas about what’s achievable, a problem driven by pro-bodybuilding. After seeing a pro-bodybuilder stepping on stage at 260 pounds or more and shredded, the idea that a natural may top out at 180-190 pounds of lean body mass (if that) can be disheartening.

Of course, to the general public, an individual at a lean 180-190 pounds is still pretty enormous. It’s just that compared to the absurd size of a pro bodybuilder, it seems absolutely tiny. But it is reality.

People forget that Arnold Schwarzenegger competed at perhaps 230 pounds (assuming 5% body fat, that’s only 220 pounds of lean body mass) and that was with (admittedly low doses) of anabolic steroids in the mixture.

.......

And while many will argue that improvements in training methods and nutrition should change the above values, that simply doesn’t seem to be the case. Human genetics have not changed and you still don’t see natural bodybuilders or other athletes coming in with more lean body mass than would be predicted by the above models. They might get there a bit faster but the overall size of natural bodybuilders doesn’t seem to have changed much, if at all, in decades.

To quote from Casey’s site:

"Over the years I’ve also received many emails full of unsubstantiated claims, hostile remarks and even personal attacks because of the information presented here. But in that time, though many have told me they’re easily going to surpass these predictions, I haven ‘t received any legitimate, verifiable statistics that significantly exceed the results of the equations presented above …including correspondence with some of today’s top-ranked drug-free bodybuilders upon which the equations were partially based."

I anticipate a similar response in the comments section of this article and I’d just refer you to what Casey wrote above.

I’d finish by only saying that I’m not writing this in an attempt to be negative in any way shape or form, as I noted in the introduction, I would rather see people put their energy into their training and nutrition than worrying ahead of time about what they might or might not accomplish. And while I certainly wish that everyone reading this is the lone exception to the values calculated above, well…that’s not what an exception is.

At the same time, a failure to recognize that there are genetic limitations can lead people to do some very silly things in terms of their training or diet. Folks nearing their genetic limits, in an attempt to gain muscle at a rate that simply not achievable will put on enormous amounts of fat in hopes that it will net them a ton of muscle gain. And that just doesn’t ever end up being the case.

I’d only note in closing that the above calculations also has some real-world implications in terms of diet (e.g. what kind of weekly or daily surplus should be attempted to maximize muscle gain without excessive fat gains) but that will have to wait for a future article.

At the same time, a failure to recognize that there are genetic limitations can lead people to do some very silly things in terms of their training or diet.

^ This is a topic I have addressed in the past.

A failure to understand potential leads lifters into this mindset that gains have stalled, and generally takes them down a road where they train with heavy volume to "break the stall". They might also over bulk to try and break the stall. I know...I tried...in 1997. I went from 220 to 270 body weight trying to break the stalls. I was also volume training to break the stalls.

I hit walls. I bulked like mad to overcome them. The result? Nothing.

As some point when you get close to natural potential there is a limited ROI. This is why I advocate aggressive eating as a beginner and cleaner bulks the more muscle you have. Also, it provides a good reason not to kill yourself with the iron once you have made great gains. (By "kill yourself" I mean 2+ hours of volume training, or 6 day splits to "re-ignite" gains.)

A failure to understand potential leads lifters into this mindset that gains have stalled, and generally takes them down a road where they train with heavy volume to "break the stall". They might also over bulk to try and break the stall. I know...I tried...in 1997. I went from 220 to 270 body weight trying to break the stalls. I was also volume training to break the stalls.

I hit walls. I bulked like mad to overcome them. The result? Nothing.

As some point when you get close to natural potential there is a limited ROI. This is why I advocate aggressive eating as a beginner and cleaner bulks the more muscle you have. Also, it provides a good reason not to kill yourself with the iron once you have made great gains. (By "kill yourself" I mean 2+ hours of volume training, or 6 day splits to "re-ignite" gains.)

It is when a person has reached this point that I feel splits of different types are useful if used correctly by a natural lifter.

Don't use a split designed by a steroid user. Use a split that makes sense for your goals, and takes into account the limited ROI that BTB mentions.

This is where thoughtful applicaton of a good program to even out weak areas can be used. It does not mean going crazy on voulume, but rather a little extra emphasis on 1 or 2 lagging parts as a main focus group.

Natural lifting is not the same as drug assisted lifting, and should not be approached or implemented as done so by the, "Pro's."

I'm not bashing him by saying that you can add more lean body mass than his numbers, for the most part they're spot on. What I'm saying is the whole yearly growth bullshit is, well bullshit. Just because you didn't add 12lbs of muscle in your first year doesn't mean you're only going to add 6 the next, then 4, then 2, etc. I've never actually ran a clean and controlled bulk before, for muscle mass. I was always the fat kid trying to lose weight and found out I had a shitload of muscle hidden away. After this competition season ill be half way through 21 years old, and I plan on taking a full year of actual bulk off, probably around 15 months, ive never really reached any specific "numbers" for mass gain. So this next offseason ill put them to the test and we'll see how much I gain.

Once again, I urge you to read the research. You are expressing a lot of opinions in this thread, and not reading the research and science behind natural potential.

You are also discounting the hard work put in by everyone from Paul Anderson to moderns like Doug Miller. All have tried. All have trained their hearts out. None have beat natural potentials.

Training advancements can't change the body's ability to hold muscle mass. It can only change the ability to gain faster before you reach potentials. Strength can be improved. That is a performance. Muscle building limitations are not performance/training based. You can't train yourself into becoming super-human.

Armies of genetic freaks have tried to surpass these potentials in the last 60 years, including Arnold, Cutler, Coleman, etc. They weren't able to do so.

The natural potential numbers are upper limits - the genetic freaks. The hardest trainers. No matter how hard any of them tried, they were not able to surpass genetic potential projections. In fact, the formulas are so accurate, they generally predict lifters weights within a pound or two.

Natural testosterone levels limit the body's ability to hold muscle mass. Training can't change this. Neither can diet. No scientific advancements in training or diet are going to mimic a steroid cycle, and they won't raise natural testosterone to that level. Not even close.

You think I am foolish and ignorant, but one day you will understand. I am not running at the mouth, frustrated by my own limitations. I understand that you do not want to be limited. Right now you are perpetuating the belief that if you only work hard enough, you can get to that Arnold level without steroids.

I'm not calling anyone or you a fool. You're not proving anything to me by telling me the same things over and over, no paperwork, studies, or research is going to prove anything to me.

And I do understand, but there is more to look at and its much simpler. Look at the growth rates of children now compared to 10-30 years ago, look at the obesity and hormonal issues these kids are experiencing at ages 6-12, its sick, and incredible at the same time. With all of this garbage they pump into processed food and fast food we're creating genetic freaks ourselves.

I couldn't bench press 100lbs til I was 14, and didn't hit puberty til I was 16, there's kids throwing up 100lbs when theyre 9, and going through puberty, full stages, at like age 10. Kids are getting more and more of the extremes, if a kid is skinny, hes SUPER skinny, if hes big, hes SUPER big.

Give it 10-20 more years and start doing measurements and weights, I bet theres a difference.

I'm not calling anyone or you a fool. You're not proving anything to me by telling me the same things over and over, no paperwork, studies, or research is going to prove anything to me.

What?

Research won't prove anything to you?

Quote:

And I do understand, but there is more to look at and its much simpler.

You're confusing the topic. What you are arguing is not the same thing as the rate of muscle gain or natural limits.

Quote:

Look at the growth rates of children now compared to 10-30 years ago.

Show me your source for this statement. Also, lets go back to your original statement, that studies don't mean anything to you, yet you use an un-quoted study to back your position.

Quote:

With all of this garbage they pump into processed food and fast food we're creating genetic freaks ourselves.

I disagree with this statementt, but don't have time to get fully inot this right now. It is however a good topic to talk about.

Quote:

I couldn't bench press 100lbs til I was 14, and didn't hit puberty til I was 16, there's kids throwing up 100lbs when theyre 9, and going through puberty, full stages, at like age 10. Kids are getting more and more of the extremes, if a kid is skinny, hes SUPER skinny, if hes big, hes SUPER big.

I don't agree with this statement as well.

Quote:

Give it 10-20 more years and start doing measurements and weights, I bet theres a difference.

Can you provide a better stanpoint for your position ? You're making some bold claims as to you're opinion, but not giving us very much with which to see your viewpoint from.

You seem to have backed into a corner with your beliefs and are unwilling to provide viable arguements to support your position.